iPhone just this one? If you think it will end with just one iPhone. Guess again. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693...

EX-TELCO Loc: Belen,New Mexico

If you think it will end with just one iPhone. Guess again.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

I really really wish they could unlock this one phone. But the software could be easily modified to unlock all iPhone 5's. And the next warrant would cover iPhone 6, etc. Of course Apple and the FBI and New York's DA and ... would promise to keep the software absolutely locked up. And of course it would leak out. End result, no terrorist, no criminal, no business afraid of hackers in China or Eastern Europe would buy an American phone again. So now everybody uses phones from outside the US where companies have no responsibility to respond to US court orders. We're right back where we started except US cell phone industry no longer exists.

I wish this wasn't true but it seems inevitable.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

In the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution we read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, ..... " - so is not an iPhone an 'effect.' Does this settle the matter. :?:

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Here is another take on this dust up.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/judge_demands_t.html

SHUTERED Loc: SO. CAL.

John_F wrote:

In the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution we read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, ..... " - so is not an iPhone an 'effect.' Does this settle the matter. :?:

I totally agree! Think about this. The government, in the form of a court order, has ordered a private corporation, to invent at its expense, technowledgey that doesn't exist yet, to breach the security system of the phone it sells in part because it is secure! Now what happens when the "Geni" is out of the bottle? Who guards this NEW Tech?

The government should request bids for this tech to be developed and then award contract as it deams or why not just hand the Dam thing off to the NSA?

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

John_F wrote:

In the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution we read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, ..... " - so is not an iPhone an 'effect.' Does this settle the matter. :?:

If it were this side of The Pond, the important word would be 'reasonable'. The courts would almost certainly agree that murder would make loss of security in this case 'reasonable'. And they would regard it as the company's problem if that had other implications.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

John_F wrote:

Here is another take on this dust up.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/judge_demands_t.html

decoonass Loc: San Antonio

Would it not be simple enough for the government to hand over the phone to Apple, allow Apple to retrieve the information and give that info to the government? No back door, no new software, no problems.

SHUTERED Loc: SO. CAL.

decoonass wrote:

Would it not be simple enough for the government to hand over the phone to Apple, allow Apple to retrieve the information and give that info to the government? No back door, no new software, no problems.

I believe that it is a chain of posetion of evidence legality question.

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

More than just a chain of evidence. The current encryption cannot be opened by Apple. The FBI has requested/ordered Apple to write a new version of iOS that will allow unlimited numbers of pins to be entered and without any time-out's. Then Apple or the Gov't could just try all 10,000 pins (with a machine) and get in. But Apple doesn't have a version of it's system that does that. AND, it doesn't want to create one because once it exists, there's a big chance it will get out. And of course, there will be additional requests (New York has already lined up with 175 iPhones for Apple to crack) so it's not like they could destroy the software.

SHUTERED Loc: SO. CAL.

If you look to my prior post on this topic you will see that I fully understand this point. I also don't think that any judge has the legal authority to order any private company at its expense, to create technology that undoes what is a strong selling point of its product, even if used for unlawful use by some stone age moron. This would be like holding Ford, GM, or Chrysler responsible for a bank robbery that incurred several murders and the driver got away because the police didn't have a remote engine kill code.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Jackdoor wrote:

If it were this side of The Pond, the important word would be 'reasonable'. The courts would almost certainly agree that murder would make loss of security in this case 'reasonable'. And they would regard it as the company's problem if that had other implications.

A part of the body of facts is that the two murderers of the victims are both dead from police gunshot. There is no case to be tried. The FBI is fishing.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

SHUTERED wrote:

I believe that it is a chain of posetion of evidence legality question.

Evidence Chain of Custody facts would have a bearing at trial, but both murderers are dead. So no trial. The FBI is fishing.

SHUTERED Loc: SO. CAL.

John_F wrote:

Evidence Chain of Custody facts would have a bearing at trial, but both murderers are dead. So no trial. The FBI is fishing.

T/Y LOL, overlooked good point! :thumbup:

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

John_F wrote:

A part of the body of facts is that the two murderers of the victims are both dead from police gunshot. There is no case to be tried. The FBI is fishing.

You mean there are no unsolved murders within a reasonable radius? There's certainty that no other felons are involved? I've mixed feelings about the principles of this case, but my point still stands.